Article Tools

As the City of Santa Barbara’s long-awaited gang injunction trial approaches the conclusion of its second week, a mysterious character dubbed “Mister X” by prosecuting attorneys has emerged as the trial’s most compelling and dramatic figure. Although Mister X has yet to testify, his revelations were invoked extensively by expert witness Greg Anderson, an ardent supporter of gang injunctions and a senior prosecuting attorney from the Fresno District Attorney’s office who has written no fewer than seven gang injunctions himself.

According to Anderson, Mister X ​— ​reportedly a shot caller for the city’s Eastside gang now being held in County Jail ​— ​met with him and other law enforcement officials last week for nearly 90 minutes. In that time, Mister X outlined in vivid detail the growing role of the Mexican Mafia ​— ​otherwise known as “La Eme” ​— ​in the affairs of Santa Barbara gangs. Anderson claimed that Mister X told him that he was instructed by a high-ranking member of La Eme that members of Santa Barbara’s rival gangs needed “to cool their jets” when the gang injunction was first proposed more than three years ago. According to Anderson, Mister X said gang activities could resume once the threat of the injunction had passed and that gang members would be entitled to “catch up” with what they’d lost by laying low.

“La Eme decided it needed to exert more local control over what’s going on in Santa Barbara,” he said. Its first priority, he testified, “was more aggressive taxation.”

Anderson said Santa Barbara’s two main criminal street gangs ​— ​the Eastside and the Westside ​— ​have long been typical California turf gangs, preoccupied with territorial primacy but largely unaffiliated with any statewide criminal enterprises. He added, however, that Santa Barbara gangs have been culturally unique in their reliance upon knives and clubs, rather than guns, as their weapons of choice. He testified that when Santa Barbara gang members found themselves prosecuted for more serious offenses, they came under increasing scrutiny by La Eme ​— ​a prison-based gang that offers protection and benefits to gang members from Southern California. More critically, Anderson testified, La Eme began to realize the untapped financial potential Santa Barbara had to offer. “La Eme decided it needed to exert more local control over what’s going on in Santa Barbara,” he said. Its first priority, he testified, “was more aggressive taxation.”

By that, he indicated La Eme would designate a handful of Santa Barbara gang members as their designated tax collectors, charging them with extracting tribute from drug dealers operating within their territories. Mister X, Anderson charged, was at one time one of two tax collectors in Santa Barbara County. The other, he claimed, was Raymond “Boxer” Macias, an Eastside gang member now facing charges for extortion and torture as part of a tax-collection effort in Santa Maria. Jury selection for Macias is now underway. Macias remains one of the 11 individuals named by the gang injunction proposed by the City of Santa Barbara. He was also active with the nonprofit Palabra, which has claimed it put a lid on gang violence by having ex-gang members talk sense to active gang members.

Although Anderson’s testimony focused on how effective gang injunctions were ​— ​he claimed that four highly anecdotal and admittedly unscientific studies he conducted in Fresno demonstrated that crime dropped by 30-50 percent within six months after the injunctions were introduced ​— ​the specter of the Mexican Mafia appears to address two key weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. For starters, the statistics introduced last week by Sergeant Dave Henderson showing the incidents of gang crime between 2004 and 2009 were notably squishy, defense attorneys argued, providing no distinction if the gang members involved were witnesses, perpetrators, or victims. Likewise, they provided poor differentiation as to the severity of the offense.

Henderson testified he identified 537 validated gang members or active participants, but that was over a 19-year period. That figure is hard to reconcile, however, with Anderson’s testimony that there are between 400 and 500 gang members within city limits right now. (Later in the trial, Santa Barbara Detective Gary Siegel ​— ​a designated expert as well ​— ​testified the number could be as low as 300.) Recent statistics released by the city’s own police department also revealed a sharp decline in gang violence and incidents over the past few years. (By contrast, gang violence in Fresno is much greater, and there are more gang killings in one year than Santa Barbara has seen in nearly 20.)

In this context, Judge Colleen Sterne might find herself challenged to conclude gangs constitute a current and abiding nuisance of such extremity that extraordinary legal steps need to be taken to limit the rights of the 11 named gang members to assemble. (Initially, there were 30, but shortly before the trial started, 19 were dropped from the proposed injunction because their cases were weak or they were serving lengthy prison sentences already.) But if Mister X was indeed told by Michael “Boo” Moreno that Santa Barbara gang members needed to “cool their jets,” that might help explain the precipitous drop in Santa Barbara’s recent gang-related activity. To the extent it can be demonstrated the Mexican Mafia has, in fact, increased its involvement in Santa Barbara affairs, that might offset whatever squish factor the judge assigns the city’s gang stats.

Defense attorneys fighting the gang injunction objected that whatever Mister X may or may not have told Anderson, he had ample reason to lie. He is facing life behind bars ​— ​temporarily incarcerated in County Jail for spouse abuse ​— ​and might be motivated to provide damaging testimony in hopes of securing some favors in exchange, they argued. Likewise, they attacked Anderson’s studies, noting that his methodology fell far short of social science standards. When asked point-blank if his studies were “scientific,” Anderson replied, “Not even close,” but he argued that gang injunctions defied any scientific inquiry because there were too many variables. He conceded Mister X might have reason to lie but added he had reason to believe him. It was Mister X who brought up Moreno’s name as his contact with the Mexican Mafia, Anderson said. And he knew Moreno, he said. He’d prosecuted him personally and sent him to prison on gang-related charges.

The trial is expected to last at least another week.

Comments

The testimony from the Fresno prosecutor is just more proof our DA is grasping at straws!The gang problem in the Fresno area is notoriously bad! I doubt it will get any better as long as their prosecutors get paid to do nonscientific "scientific studies".To add further insult, it seems our city has been overran with rats not gangs! Eventually the motormouths securing their leniency will run afoul with those they set up. Who then will be responsible for the crime that ensues? Ask the DA... I'm absolutely sure she'll tell you it was the "Mexican Mafia"!

The Mexican Mafia is a real threat. Santa Maria has been taken over by the Mafia. Santa Maria needs an "operation Falling Dawn" type intervention to clean up that city. The FBI needs to get involved.

Gang injunctions don't address the root of the problem. Prohibition doesn't work in America, never has. Just creates violent crime. Drug and alcohol abuse doesn't change whether or not it's legal or not.

"By that, he indicated La Eme would designate a handful of Santa Barbara gang members as their designated tax collectors, charging them with extracting tribute from drug dealers operating within their territories."

So hey Barron why are you going to continue with your proven LOSING strategy of "keeping the heat up" that failed during alcohol prohibition, that saw dramatic rises in gang violence which was GONE after alcohol was once again legalized?

What you don't understand is the more "heat" you put on them, demand outstrips supply and the price goes up!! This gives the gangs MORE incentive to operate here because their profit margin goes up!! What you'll do is put not only the gang affiliated drug dealers but the random non-gang affiliated drug dealers out of business who may be loosely tied to them through a customer base, but there will always be gang members ready and willing to then take over his customers!!

loon, legalizing drugs ain't happening ( except hopefully the ganj) so we have to deal in realities.

the reality is Mexican mafia is doing business in sb now, and they know full well what the injunction will do to them. fire that puppy up judge sterne and lets get crackalackin with that g.i.

when a politician like cathy murillo is so strident in her opposition to the g.i even though she is fully aware of the scope of criminal involvement it brings to this town....it makes one think hard about her loyalties.

There he goes again, in loonylooloo land, speaking the nonsense that only he/she can speak.Loons, get it through your head, even if you legalize the drugs and SUPPOSEDLY put these clowns out of business, they're still going to stay in business by:

a) Stealing from the legit purveyors of the product and selling it through their own channels.b) They'l extort the legit dealers into protection rackets.c) They'll find other sources of income through extorting, coercing, harassing and intimidating neighborhoods.

Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE BAD PEOPLE. Get it through your drug addled peabrain, bad people live to do bad things, it is what they specialize in and thrive on.By the way, I hope they legalize pot in an all out comprehensive manner across the board. Still won't make these idiots go away.Lawdy, 100% correct on all grounds, especially the Murillo reference, she's in concert with the gang scum, what is so hard to see about that? Wishful thinking?

By the way loonster, the Indy isn't giving it coverage (I wonder why), but the Isla Vista Tenants Union has imposed a ban on Fuzion Glass Gallery (the bong shop) for their involvement with hosting/sponsoring the douchetopia facebook page.The IVTU is probably THE most left-leaning entity in the IV community, but even THEY can see and spot garbage a mile away. Just wanted to give your drug sizzled supposed intellect a break from fantasyland so you can get to reality. The same reality that says INJUNCTION AGAINST GANG SCUM NOW!

Murillo isn't in concert with "gang scum", she's in concert with the Santa Barbara electorate, many of whom oppose the injunction for a variety of reasons. How about putting the injunction to a general vote?Would it even get on the ballot? Are gang fears/concerns doing as much or more damage than gangs themselves to community cohesion and civility?

Who profits from that? Politicians, especially those running failing campaigns for Congress.

The problem with Prohibition is it was never enforced from day one. Get your history straight. You can even learn this from uber-liberal PBS.

Prohibition did not fail because it restricted alcohol sales. It failed because it left the door open for criminal elements to take it over and corrupt the activity even further, while the flow of alcohol was never touched.

Criminal element gangs do not belong in Santa Barbara in any way shape or form.

They are an infectious disease. You isolate them. You quarantine them. You inoculate against them. You install vigilant preventive measures. And you do not stop, until every single infectious criminal gang agent is eliminated at every level.

"Loons, get it through your head, even if you legalize the drugs and SUPPOSEDLY put these clowns out of business, they're still going to stay in business by:

a) Stealing from the legit purveyors of the product and selling it through their own channels.b) They'l extort the legit dealers into protection rackets.c) They'll find other sources of income through extorting, coercing, harassing and intimidating neighborhoods."

Did that happen with alcohol? The answer is no. You're making things up. I'm not saying everything will be perfect if drugs are legalized, what I'm saying is that making them illegal and taking actions to get rid of drugs and drug dealers pushes up the price, pushes up the profit margin and encourages more people to get involved, more money gets involved and violence ensues because the police and courts cannot mediate drug debt and contractual disagreements between people involved in the drug trade. Making drugs illegal makes the gang situation and crime situation worse, PERIOD. There is no logical argument against that.

"the Isla Vista Tenants Union has imposed a ban on Fuzion Glass Gallery (the bong shop) for their involvement with hosting/sponsoring the douchetopia facebook page."

What does a "ban" mean? People can't go to the shop and buy their products even if they want to? How is this being enforced? Hopefully if the community liked their products they will start up a webpage, maybe a bong delivery service, and the community can help them stay in business.

"The problem with Prohibition is it was never enforced from day one."

Ya, all of those photographs of government dumping out alcohol and shutting down speak easy's was all just somebody's imagination?? The reason prohibition wasn't enforced as you invision it is because Hitler wasn't available to enforce it, I believe he was in Germany at the time. You think you can just make something illegal and it will go away because law abiding citizens won't participate.. Well I have news for you, all that does is turn what would be law abiding citizens into criminals. Then you use violence to kidnap non-violent non-criminals and put them in a cage. If anybody should be in jail, it should be prohibitionists.

Even if you legalize all drugs, that still leaves prostitution, racketeering, arms smuggling, smuggling of undocumented immigrants, car-jacking, and other unsavory enterprises for the gang members to engage in. Combine zero tolerance for gang activity with improved schools, respect for cultural differences, and more opportunity for legal jobs. Maybe then we'll move toward a healthier community.

In concert, in bed.. whatever. I wonder what other motivations there are for those that oppose? I mean look at this DB (and I don't mean defensive back), Arron Hernandez. Just glorifying this type of craptastic behavior. I crack up when I see some of these knuckle heads on TV saying they can't even walk their kids to school. LOL! (yes I said LOL!) Well too bad for you! You can't patrol your own turf. In that same interview, why don't they go through all the things that got them on the list and details of the incidents?

A bully is a bully is a bully..and either they need to knocked on their A$$es to learn or get a big huge time out! Perhaps the more juvenile terms some of these people can relate to since it seems their self perpetuation is obtained by corrupting youth. I think of this as more of a 3 year time out to get off the list. :) Perhaps they could take away all video games too during that time? Hopefully this document can add members as needed.

Anyway, Sterne has an opportunity to do something good for this community. Yes she moves at a snails pace...and is inept at times, but this could prove out to be her legacy and one of the best moves in her career. Fresno DA, great witness, good testimony.

What an absolute JOKE this. Since WHEN has our judicial system prosecuted people based on complete hearsay and "unscientific" studies? And gee, I wonder why this guy would say all this? Hmm, maybe because he'll get a majorly reduced sentence!Had this been ANY other population of people, everyone would be totally up in arms."...gang violence in Fresno is much greater, and there are more gang killings in one year than Santa Barbara has seen in nearly 20." Yeah, no sh*t Sherlock! Anyone who lives in and loves SB should be embarrassed by this circus. This town is NOT a "warzone" and most of those on trial are ALREADY serving long sentences, have been deported, or are in school, working, raising families and NO longer active in gang life. SBPD is the biggest gang in this town. You people need to open your eyes!

"Even if you legalize all drugs, that still leaves prostitution, racketeering, arms smuggling, smuggling of undocumented immigrants, car-jacking, and other unsavory enterprises for the gang members to engage in."

Well first of all prostitution should also be legal.

As far as arms smuggling, most of the reason the gangs are armed is to protect their drugs!! The point is the gangs organize themselves for the purpose of selling drugs and making a profit. There is a guy at the top and he wants money!! He can't get money from petty thieves, he can only get the real money from drug dealers. If you can't see that, you didn't read the above article or you have complete lack of logical reasoning skills.

A very simple cursory glance at history shows you that most of the gang activity involved in alcohol prohibition disappeared after alcohol was legalized. It didn't stop ALL crime, but crime dropped SIGNIFICANTLY including gang crime.

If you are FOR crime, then you should be for making drugs illegal, if you are against crime, you should be for making drugs legal. Illegal drugs fund gangs, get it through your head.

Seems to me the vices you speak of are merely one element of the lifestyle needed to fund clandestine activities. The assaults, batteries, murders will continue regardless because of the territorial nature of these associates. The 3 year time out will hopefully curb this behavior.

You find an unmet need and you put together a skill set with value to meet it.

This is exactly the same skill set the drug dealers cobbled together. Make drug dealing 100% illegal and/or 100% dry up the drug demand and you divert that same illegal entrepreneurial vigor into legitimate business opportunities.

So assault, robbery, theft, carjackings, assault with a deadly weapon, rape, intimidation, extortion, coercion, harassment, all that neat stuff, they're not crime then loony? You want to know what's a crime? Your constant whining. Get off the drugs, they're starting to make a difference... a BAD difference.

You find an unmet need and you put together a skill set with value to meet it."

When a kid who is less fortunate has one opportunity of making $9/hr and the government makes drugs illegal and gives them another opportunity to make $100/hr it doesn't take a genius to realize which position they are being pushed into taking.

Their illegal immigrant parents were "less fortunate" and did not resort to dealing drugs. They found a legitimate unmet need and filled it, even at minimum wage.

This has long been the boot-strapping story of the successful immigrant model. Choosing to involve oneself in drugs and crime is only an unfortunate choice, and nothing more. Such are the wages of sin. Biblical.

Year of no more excuses. '

If drinking is a personal choice, they can do it in private and not end up on the public dole. Once they get in my face and demand I support their life-style is when it is no longer a "personal" decision.

If they ban mail and family communication at the jails, it would effectively cut the gang communication and lifeblood of how gangs thrive. Sure the revolving door of criminals can offer some communication, but if you want to sever gang activity, cut the throat of the voices. No letters, no phone, and no visits. Is it inhumane? Sure, but that is what jail is.

"If drinking is a personal choice, they can do it in private and not end up on the public dole. Once they get in my face and demand I support their life-style is when it is no longer a "personal" decision."

Are you saying that all of the people in Santa Barbara who drink are on the dole?

No wonder everybody thinks you live in another dimension..

Why do you think it is a good idea to ban alcohol for everybody just because some poor people drink?

"Is it inhumane? Sure, but that is what jail is."

So a cop plants drugs on you and accusing you of selling them and now not only do you go to jail, but you can't ever talk to your family?

Well I hope they get Mr. X on the stand soon. This article practically calls him out by name. I am not sure any of his associates will appreciate him speaking so freely about their clandestine activities.

This article highlights some really important things: 1. Cartels are controlling the turf-war gangs here. 2. The gangs have cooled their jets under orders from the Eme. The anti-injunction set uses declining gang crime as one of their arguments to not go through with the injunction. Had they gotten their way, this was exactly what the Eme wanted, and that calls for some scrutiny of some of the characters against the injunction. Is it really about 'not targeting our youth', or were they doing the Eme's bidding? Hmmm. Macias' case is particularly interesting, given he was the #2 in Palabra, who started the agitation movement against the injunction.

It's only on the Indy that you could find a character like Loonpt whose only takeaway was to conclude that it fits his theory that we should legalize drugs. That's how you stop gangs. Right. They're already into trafficking and other illicit activities, as posters point out. You gonna' legalize those too?

True, the anti gang injunction people are very well organized. PODER, palabra, well organized rallies, savvy media interviews...even getting local republican shout outs. All this needs money. Where's it coming from.

And someone on city council needs to ask Murillo some hard questions about her relationship with gangs.

Well Foo you can always move to China , a government no different than drug mafias themselves really. Great big blood bath for money and power is all it is.And someone needs to get over their racist attacks on Murillo, since my dear Lawdy I don't see these same accusations and questions being levied towards Greg Hart.Hell, why don't you ask me these same questuions, I'm against the injunction.If it's all going to be guilt by association, a good many injunction supporters on these pages are eligible for injunctification!

In the end it's all fear being spread by desperate politicians to garner votes and nothing else.

"They're already into trafficking and other illicit activities, as posters point out. You gonna' legalize those too?"

For a crime to occur there must be a victim. If a person is being trafficked against their will then I am against that, obviously it should be illegal. I am against theft and violence. Otherwise I am all for people engaged in consensual economic activity.

As I stated, however, there is no economic motivation for gangs to traffic weapons if they aren't using them to protect drug territory.

All you have to do is look at a graph showing gang violence and you can see peaks during alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. What I am saying is simply indisputable fact.

I am always stunned at the insular mindset of the locals here. You're presented with the fact that la Eme is operating in your area, that they ordered local gangs to lay low until the threat of the injunction passes, after which they can go on a crime spree to make up for lost time...and here's your response:

Legalize drugs!Throw out draconian laws!I just don't like the injunction...

You guys are la Eme's dream. A bunch of yokels completely oblivious to the larger terrain they are standing on, who have zero idea how their whacked views contribute to gang proliferation.

You get rid of these criminal enterprise gangs by getting rid of these gangs with every single tool you have at your disposal. Injunctions are part of the tool box. Coddling, denying or excusing them is not even on the table for discussion. They are deadly pests and need swift and total eradication now.

Peer pressure gets rid of gangs, but there has to be a safety zone first where peer pressure can operate without this present climate of fear and intimidation which has become worse after the invasion of the out of town gangs.

This city was warned years ago it was being invaded by the larger criminal gangs. Warning time is up. Gangs such as these will now be part of this city's past history, and not it's present or its future.

1) Gang scum don't need the drug trade to do bad, there's PLENTY of other crimes gang scum participate in that DON'T involve drugs.2) Organizations like PODER, PUEBLO and all the others are trying to equate the gang scum problem to race while gang scum ARE the biggest racists.3) Cathy Murillo is ONLY interested in her political future, when the injunction wins and the gang scum get busted she's done.4) Gang scum will ALWAYS find a way to cause problems.5) The very gang scum that you fools stick up for will stick a knife in your back the moment they can.6( Gang scum = bad people, simple as that.

What don't you idiots see? Get off the drugs kids, they're REALLY messing up your perspective.

dogsnsand, legalizing drugs takes away THEIR ENTIRE BUSINESS!! You can put all of the gangs out of business tomorrow by legalizing drugs.. YOU'RE la eme's dream, YOU are keeping la eme in business by escalating the war on drugs.

Criminal gangs can't thrive on petty theft, it just isn't profitable.

Drugs are very profitable, but ONLY because they are illegal.

I'm sorry if you can't understand basic economics, and it's REALLY frustrating that foofighter can't apply his understanding of basic economics to this particular situation, but I have found foofighter to be extremely unprincipled. In one thread he is ok with people producing and buying whatever they want related to nano-technology even if it has some devastating effect on the environment... Yet he is against people producing and buying drugs which simply go into somebody's bloodstream and come out in their urine. There is a complete logical disconnect there.

I'm sorry if you can't understand basic criminal behavior, and it's REALLY frustrating that loonytoons can't apply his understanding of basic criminal behavior to this particular situation, but I have found loonytoons to be extremely unprincipled. In one thread he is ok with average people having to follow laws like not murdering or stealing or raping because these are criminal behaviors... Yet he is against seeing the same laws apply to gang scum. There is a complete disconnect from reality there.

blahblah, let's do a short exercise so I can show you why you are completely wrong.

Let's say you have 20 young lads who are trying to decide what they want to do with their life. They are deciding whether being a criminal will get them further or whether getting a legitimate job will get them further. What these 20 have in common is they are all considering both options.

They can go out and get a job and make $20k/year with no chance of going to jail.

If a criminal can join a gang and make $40k/year selling drugs and can also make $20k/year as a petty thief, and has a 10% chance of going to jail as a drug dealer and a 50% chance of going to jail making $20k/year as a petty thief, how many of these 20 lads lads will choose to become a criminal? Probably 5 or 10 at least.

Now take away the selling drugs option. 90% of the kids who chose to be a criminal primarily to sell drugs will no longer choose the criminal option because it is too risky and it isn't profitable enough. They will get a real job. There will still be a guy or two maybe out there committing crimes, but you will have less people engaged with other criminals because they will have better opportunities as an alternative. Making drugs illegal makes the criminal enterprise option extremely attractive as it becomes very lucrative.

Loonytoons, let's do a short exercise so I can show you why you are completely wrong.

Let's say you have 20 young lads who are trying to decide what they want to do with their life. They are deciding whether being a criminal will get them further or whether getting a legitimate job will get them further. What these 20 have in common is they THEORETICALLY are all considering both options.

They can go out and get a job and make $20k/year with no chance of going to jail.

If a criminal can join a gang and make ZERO MONEY/year being a thug and can make $20k/year as a petty thief, and has a 100% chance of going to jail as a GANG SCUM THUG and a 100% chance of going to jail making $20k/year as a petty thief, how many of these 20 lads lads will choose to become a criminal? DEFINITELY 1 or 2 at least.

Now take away the THEORETICAL DRUG ANGLE FROM YOUR THEORETICAL ASSUMPTION. 90% of the kids who chose to be a criminal primarily to BE THUGS will CONTINUE to choose the criminal option because it is WHAT THEY STRIVE FOR. They will get a "REAL" job FOR PARTY MONEY. There will still be a guy or two out there committing crimes, but IT IS BECAUSE TROUBLE IS ALL THEY KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE GANG SCUM. Making drugs illegal OR LEGAL HAS NOTHING TO DO WHY GANG SCUM BECOME GANG SCUM AND MAINTAIN GANG SCUM STATUS.

It really doesn't take much "thinking" to see THE REALISTIC point of view.

"Insert any of these terms for 'illegal drug sales' in your argument:kidnappingextortionhuman traffickingarms sales

These are ALSO gang activities. Are you going to argue for them to be legal next?"

Gangs get most of their money from drug sales, so you reduce their revenue by over half by legalizing drugs. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand.

I am pro-2nd amendment and I am all for consensual economic transactions, so I would be against kidnapping, extortion and human trafficking if it against the will of those being trafficked. I am for drugs being legal because I don't believe I can tell other people how to live. If you do, you should check your authoritarian privilege.

As far as drugs being illegal because they are "dangerous", the biggest dangers from drugs are actually being arrested as well as all of the crime caused by the war on drugs. Those dangers dwarf the dangers of individuals using drugs.

I don't get it. Why in the world are the authorities in any US city having a tough time with gang members. Gangs coming from another country just add insult to injury. If Fresno doesn't have enough money to deal with the problem and keep the residents safe, then they should call in the feds. Granted, with the current administration, they might request a treaty and want to swap land for peace, but that doesn't mean we have to go along with it. We have the National Guard and Special Forces. S.F. are as good as a team of super heros. The Fresno police can have the LA Gang enforcement team come to train a team for them, and anyone who wants to be on that team should go through special forces training afterward. No gang member will have a chance. Granted, we can't just take them out with a sniper bullet while they are withing our borders, but they can take them down with the same kind of dart gun they would use on a bear that might walk into the city limits. This is rediculous and it should be embarassing for the Fresno Authorities. If the city does not have the money to pay for it, then the federal gov't. should foot the bill. After all, their refusal to protect our borders and give the Mexican Mafia weapons at the beginning of the Obama administration, makes them partialy responsible. They recently released over 100,000 illeagals into the streets because of their policies. Many of them were guilty of murder, rape, there were pedophiles, theives, abusers and people guilty of many many other crimes. How many of them were Mexican Mafia? It's time for both of our Senators to step up and do their jobs. Get the money that Fresno, and any other California city needs to deal with this problem, protect our borders in eanest and make it possible for the local authorities to do the job the people in their communities are relying upon them to do.

That contradicts your philosophy of legalizing drugs and putting them out of business.

What isn't being addressed by either side is how our de facto two-tiered immigration system has created this problem. The one group comes in legally, is expected to learn the language, assimilate, and become part of the culture, while the other knows it's just an expendable cog in the cheap labor Ponzi scheme of open borders where if they complain too much, they get sent back to their home country. People running the gamut from PODER to right-wing Republicans/Libertarians/Big Business support this but then complain about the inevitable result of an angry, alienated, mostly second-generation fallout from this policy.

Loonpt, with his clamor for legalizing drugs gets it halfway right, but doesn't address (unless I missed something) the bigger picture our changing (not for the better) immigration policy. What Murillo, PODER, and those who oppose them don't understand, or don't want to discuss is the overall cause.

blah, so why do you want to give more money and resources to "bad people" for engaging in "bad activity"? That's what making drugs illegal does, it gives incentive for bad people to engage in bad activity because it is highly profitable. You don't think that sometimes people do bad things because the monetary incentive is there and not just because they are "different" and have some weird desire that you don't understand to want to do bad things? I don't think you understand the economic motivations behind bad behavior.

Please start feeding the kids from gangbanging families breakfast, lunch and dinner. Give them free tutors and books. Lower their standards for academic success so that none of them fail. Oh, wait, we already did that and yet their own contempt for being deviants in society is not even close to their umbrage about potentially being profiled.Memo to the Intentionally Ignorant-The Mexican Cartels are behind a huge proportion of the Latino gang activity in southern California. Apparently we would prefer what already happened in Bakersfield. Fresno addressed their problem in a straightforward manner, it is working, and that seems to drive the extreme left apologists crazy.

DUH! Already knew that. the issue is NOT POT, it is BAD PEOPLE WHO DO BAD THINGS! It has nothing to do w/ pot for me, that is a useless "crime" in my opinion AS WELL!This is about urban terrorists that seek the following: Respect, notoriety, power, status, control and will do ANYTHING to attain those things.It is about terrorizing regular, hard working people, coercing and even extorting and harassing them. Drugs are just a party favor to these gang scum.What about this plain English statement do you NOT understand? Which of the many languages I know how to speak do I need to use to get it through your drug addled existence?You, kind sir, ARE A MORON. Yes, I know, Loon Point where you live is hidden away from where us NORMAL folks live, therefore real world problems are not your forte. It is evident in all your posts.With that said, the rest of us deal in the REAL world, not a world dictated by internet links.With that said, you fail at the reality test: READING BETWEEN THE LINES! Again, I congratulate you on your moronic existence, may Loon Point keep you within its safe borders because if you ever venture out to the REAL world, we ALL know the first thing you'll try to do is bro down with the gang scum and it will definitely lead to your naive nature either getting jumped or shanked.So, again, at the risk of repeating myself, just to remind you: You lose, again, get used to it son

blah, under your theory that "bad people will do bad things", legalizing cannabis should then not effect the murder rate or any other crime rates because bad people simply do bad things.

Your theory falls apart when we see that there is actually monetary incentive to do bad things and that increasing the monetary incentive by making drugs illegal increases the incentive for bad people to do bad things. This causes more bad things to happen. It's a very simple formula/equation.

"Fresno addressed their problem in a straightforward manner, it is working, and that seems to drive the extreme left apologists crazy."

They didn't address the 'problem', they just moved it to the next town over. We don't need to turn the entire state into Nazi Germany Fresno to get rid of the cartels, in fact that will just make things worse when prices on drugs go up even more and the profit margins go up. We need to legalize drugs so the cartels don't have any more funding.

loonytoons, under the FACT that "bad people will do bad things", legalizing cannabis should then not effect the murder rate or any other crime rates because bad people simply do bad things.

THE FACT STICKS when we see that there ARE actually PEOPLE DEALING DRUGS THAT DON'T do bad things. This IS BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THE WORD DISCRETION AND IF bad things happen IT IS A THREAT TO THEIR TRADE. It's a very simple formula/equation AND FACT.